 And we are continuing our conversation about education finance with Brad James and Julian, Brad James from the agency of education and Julia Richter from the joint fiscal office we left off in the middle of a presentation from Mr. James. So please come on down. And I'm very cognizant of your time, both your time and this Rick first time. So we're getting you out. No later than two minutes before. Two o'clock. I told him I said I'd probably be a little bit late. It's fine. Yes. Yes. Let's stop. Yeah, so we'll turn this over to you, Mr. James. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for the record. Brad James, agency of education. I was thinking up where I left off yesterday. Of course, I didn't bring that with me actually, but that's okay. That's not. So yesterday we were kind of going over the simplistic version of how weights work and how they tend to interact with one. And I think the point we ended at is right where I was saying, these are the new weights that it's going to have that are going to be occurring in S27. It's to go through. Yes. But recommended by passport. Yes. Okay. So you can, again, just to reiterate what I said yesterday, the weights that we're currently using are for pre-K. It's a reduction. It's for secondary, which are grades seven through 12. And it's for ELL. And it's for poverty. And poverty is defined in current statute as students living with eight, or I shouldn't say students. Excuse me. Persons, children, whatever. I think the status of persons, but children living with families who are receiving economic. Let me try this again. Start over. It's, it's, it's persons ages six through 17 who are living with families who receive nutritional benefits. It's kind of what the statute says. So what that is, that's numbers from DCF. But like I think we talked about yesterday briefly, those, those are the numbers that we're currently using. So there's a wait for that. The new weights. Those that can't see here. The new weights. Expand and change the waiting amounts. So pre-K and triple E is still the same. It's, it's a reduction. It's, it's, it's a, it's, it's the same thing as what it is. It's a negative number here. Encourage that it's a positive. There are reasons that we don't need to worry about it. It's the same result. K five is the, is, has no weight. That's kind of considered the base case or six through eight is a, is a middle school weight now. It's a new one. And that's a zero point three six. We'll talk about those are associated with later on. And then there's a secondary weight, which instead of being seven 12 is now nine 12 because we have that middle school way. And it's zero point three nine. That's compared to the zero point one three that we have currently. Okay. So it's three times higher. And we have an FRL weight of one point zero three. Okay. We changed the, we changed the part of the capital from, from the DCF count to students eligible for your reduced lunges. And the weighting factor is caught up. Quite a bit. It was point two five. So it's gone up by profit factor four. I'm sorry. I'm just talking about the talk about interaction right there is quite a leader. There are some significant changes here. And again, people are thinking this is what's going to happen with me, but because the interaction is not quite what everybody expected. So now the next ones are new, the sparsities. The research has found that, that in districts, or yeah, in districts, the sparsity level below a certain percent, it costs more. So they added weights in for that. So there are three sparsity levels. The first one is if you're, if you have 30, 36 persons or less per square mile. And it's not by school. This is persons in the district area. Then the weight is zero point one five. The way the sparsities were calculated was I took, I got data of populations by town. And then map the towns out to the school districts they belong to and aggregate it up to that level. So that's where that's coming from. The second one is if you have 36 or more persons per square mile, but less than 55, you get a weight of 0.12. And the last one is if you're 55 or more persons per square mile, but less than 100, you have a weight of 0.7 or 0.07. Again, these are new. Number four, or what I just wanted to inform my sheet that you'll see later, districts with small schools. Those were determined by the researchers to be require more if they were in a sparse district. And they didn't, they said if the sparsity is 55 or less, or less than 55, I can't see my glasses. Yes, less than 55 or less persons per square mile. Then if you have a small school, you get this factor too. Small schools in that case were broken up to two different categories. One was enrollments below 100. You got an additional 0.21 for that. And those schools that had 102 greater than 1 to 250, less than or equal to 250. And that's a 0.07. I'm trying to wrap my head around this. Well, I may be going quickly. No, no, no, you're fine. But we, we've had a concern as, as a state that we have too many small schools because closing schools is not an easy decision. And it sounds like by increasing the weight, maybe I'm reading that from our small schools and I get it, they're more expensive to run to get it. We're kind of encouraging. Or, or putting it off because we don't have to. I don't disagree. No, no, I don't believe you are. And that's kind of how current law was up until act 46 of 2015, which is the unification bill. We're giving every small school rates to keep your small schools alive. At the same time, we're saying small schools are expensive. They should be closed. They're not efficient. They're not doing such a good job. Yeah, they're, you know, you, you're getting them on all sides of that is whether that's true statement. What one of the ideas behind act 46 was that districts would tend to merge their small schools to find more efficiencies. And in some cases that happened in other cases, in most cases, it did not. But the small schools grants that people got at that point, if we voluntarily merged by back 46 became what's called a merger support grant. That goes on. I think I said this, yes, that goes on a new perpetuity until the school either closes that gave it that grant or or the legislature changed its mind. So it's a mixed message. You're quite right. And this is this is continuing that. And then the last one, the last quate is not a new one, but it's significantly different is ELL currently it's 0.20. It is now 2.49. The weights came from the researchers. They were looking at what they're seeing every, you know, the way they did it. And these are basically what these weights were doing was saying this would be what it would take to translate dollars into a weight. And say this is what we need to bring. We need to spend extra on an average student in these categories over what a base amount would be. That's that's kind of how it was done. So they're they're resuming and this is not the case in Vermont. We don't we don't have a foundation for that we don't have anything like that. But this assumption was that we're all spending a certain amount for the modeling that they did. And that these are the additional cost quote unquote that would take to get to bring kids up to the right. That's that's the difference. Okay. All right. Now I don't have my sheet in front of me from yesterday. I apologize. But on the next page is a calculation. If you're looking at if you're looking at this one from today, that's not it. This is from yesterday. That's it. Yes. Okay. Yes. Okay. On the next one is a quick walkthrough of how tax rates are calculated and Julie went over this a little bit yesterday too. In fact, if I can't, is there one here? I'm going to steal it for a moment. Perfect. Now I know what I'm talking about. I've said three times. Thank you. It says tax rate calculation. This is just again, made up numbers. This is just how tax rate to calculate in this case I started out and there's really why I chose these numbers in this case because they work in this case. I say that the total expense for this school district are not just over $19 million. We have a line to offsetting revenues of $5,210 million, $5,210,000 by offsetting revenues. I mean, federal monies. Categorical aid from the state in form of special education, transportation, merger support grants, most schools grant. This may be if they're, they have tuition coming in, it'll be a tuition. It could be they have a surplus from a prior year. It could be interest bearing accounts, somebody can give them money, a whole raft of things. These won't mean by offsetting revenues. This is not a generic term. When you subtract those two, you get what's called education spending and there is a technical definition for education spending in statute. But when you subtract, we get $14,940,000 in this case. Sorry, what page are you? I'm on page six. You're on the wrong page. You're on, you're on today's. I'm on yesterday. So it had, it had this on the front. The word is me. I'm on page six. This education spending number is what goes into the education funds. I'm on page six. I'm on page six. I'm on page six. I'm on page six. I'm on page six. I'm on page six. So in order to get the tax rate, we need to figure out a cost for people. And then we talked about that initially by currently by equalized pupils. That's that weighted number that we were discussing yesterday. This one. I'm on page six. In this case, we have 780 equalized pupils. Everybody with me? Everybody have the right sheet of paper? I'm sorry. I didn't say that clearly at the beginning. Of course I didn't have mine. So we have 780 equalized people. So when you divide education spending the $14,040,000 by 780 equalized people as you get lined five. Education spending for equalized people in this case. $18,000. That's why I chose this number. I like zeros. Fictitious property yield here. This is not the real property yield. But I chose $12,000 for the property yield. So for every $12,000 of district spends on its equalized pupils, it's tax rate is $1. Spend 20% more tax than 20% higher. So in this case, if you take $18,000, education spending for pupil, divided by the yield of $12,000, you get $1.50. So in this case, if you take $18,000, education spending for pupil, divided by the yield of $12,000, you get $1.50. So in this case, you get $1.50. That's the tax rate. That's the equalized tax rate for the school district. At that point, the district now has a tax rate. It goes to the town that it belongs to. In this case, it's a single town. And the town then takes that tax rate, applies its common level appraisal and assesses it out to the taxpayers. So in this case, I cleverly chose a nice round number of 93% for the CLA. If you divide the tax rate, the equalized tax rate of $1.50 by 93%, you get a tax rate of $1.61. That's what would show up on people's tax bills on a homestead property tax bill. That amount right there. Everybody with me? This is all? Okay, again, just quick overview. So if you now turn to page 7, there's now a second set of data. Okay, the first set of data is what you just saw. The second set is the same expenditures, same offsetting revenues, the same education spending. But we've changed the equalized people number. And this is what's going to happen with S287. Some people are going to go up, some are going to go down. So this is an example of going up. So in this case, now the equalized people count has gone up to 794. 780. Spending for people has therefore decreased. So it's now 17,683. When you divide by the yield, the tax rate is $1.474. That's the equalized rate. This is properties at fair market value. Divide by the CLA. And the tax rate people see on their bill, it's $1.585. So it's down. And the only thing that shows up is the tax rate. So it's $1.585. So it's down. And the only thing that changed was the pupil count. So that's what I want people to get to understand, is that if you change your equalized pupil count, your tax rate changes. Assuming everything else is constant in reality, it won't be constant. Was there a question? I think we're okay. Okay. So if we go to page 8, once again, same general idea, same that you saw initially, on the left, different data on the right in terms of equalized pupil counts highlighted in blue. This time, the equalized pupil count went down. So this time, this school district did not have the same groupings of kids it had before in terms of the new weights. So they lost the equalized pupils. Everything else stays constant. So you're now dividing the Ed spending by 770 kids. Your spending for pupil has now gone up to $18,234. When you divide that by the yield of 12,000, you get a new tax rate, equalized tax rate of $1.52. So that's higher than before by two cents. When you adjust it by the CLA, you get a tax rate of people see on the bill of $1.63 for. So it's gone up because your pupil count has gone down. Tax rates, all else being constant, tax rates and pupil counts go in opposite directions. One goes up, the other goes down. This is really great. And I'm sort of jumping ahead a little. I have two questions. Are the majority of towns going up or down and what is the spectrum of change in terms of tax impact ranging from X to Y? It's a hard question to answer because things aren't constant. And I don't know the answer for this coming year. I've not seen CLA's yet for this coming year. My guess is they've gone down quite a bit more so than usual is my guess because of how appropriate that is of skyrockets. People see it by a lot of property quickly at high prices. So I think in general, I mean, in general, the yield goes up, but also spending goes up. At the same time, in general, pupil counts go down. So if your spending is going up, your pupil counts going down, your spending for pupils going higher, which is part of the reason why the yield is up, but there's also the money coming in. But they have to bring in enough money to the Ed fund to pay everything. So I don't think I have an answer as to what the general is. I can look at C for a couple of years, see what the general trend is, and I'll get back to you on that. Off the top of my head, I don't know. I mean, the reason I ask is if we are going to be asked to road on a bill and we don't have a sense of the implications. And I'm guessing that there will be some transitional plan, no doubt, but that puts us in a difficult position. That's we're going to come to afterwards. I'll talk quickly about what S 287 itself actually says. Let's show you some real examples and then what they're talking about for a transition that's in S 287. Ways and means right now is talking about changing it up and talking about a different transition method for what they want to do, which Julie will speak to more than I will. But so everything is talking about some type of transition mechanism. I was just going to say and I can't put my hands on it. I did last night look at a chart that had all the school districts and they're, you know, at the end of four years or whatever it is, I think that's where we're going to come to. And quickly looking, most districts ended up better off. My particular district did not until here did not. Brattabarra does not. Brattabarra? Well, and there's some oddities of what does and doesn't end up. I would have assumed Montpelier would not do as well. Just given what our demographics are, but Plaintail Twin Field or Twin Field did not do well and that doesn't comport those graphics. But there's something else going on. There is. And again, there's some caveat that modeling that you're talking about that I'll come to shortly. Because they're serious because they're one year's worth of data. It's not really what's going to happen here. So I'm that kind of wraps up this part yesterday. If that makes sense to you. Yes. And I'm just cognizant of times that let's keep challenges. Okay. The next one I'd like to talk about is the first one that was posted today. It's an eight page as proposed. Those don't come too later. Okay. But I don't have anything that's as proposed. Yeah. That's okay. Here comes Teresa. Yeah. There it is. I've got it. It's going to be a paper blizzard today. So hang on. Okay. This first page that we're looking at here goes under under S 287 that came from the task force recommendations from the researchers. That's all that we talked about this. What I did add in here was I did add in blue. I added what the count is that we're going to be using that weight against. So what you see under grade range weights you see we're going to be using the long-term ADM under number two the poverty weight. We're going to be using FRL counts under three sparsity population. We're going to be using the long-term ADM again under four district to small schools. They have to meet two criteria to get that. They have to be in a sparse district. The 55 persons are less for populate per square mile per population. And then they have to have a two-year average enrollment. So we use the two-year average enrollment and then English language learners. It's that way to apply it against the ELL count itself. I just just see you have some bad for this movie because it's a key point. We're not using the same student count for the different weights. If you go to page two I've now added in four districts and the state as a whole. And what I'm showing you are the counts in each of those categories that we were just talking about on page one. So we've got district A, B, C, and D and then we've got the state as a whole on the far right. It counts nine or ten. These are real districts. This is FY 22 data. So these are numbers that are actually in the model that come from the model that we're going to be talking about. This is the starting point for the weighting for each and every district. And again, I just chose four. Okay. I just don't know if you want to take a look. All right. I'm just adding. I'm filling out the weight column. You see that the columns that are even two, four, six, eight, and ten are the weighting columns, the additional weights that we're adding. And I got those by taking the weight and multiplying it by whatever the appropriate student count was. So if I look at district A and I'll do the first one and it's pre-K triple E, there are 125 long-term medium in those grades in that age range for them. The factor is negative 0.54 to reduction. So they lose 68 ADM. Okay. It decreases to that. But if you jump down to the middle school on 6-8, again, still district A. They have 338 kids in grades 6-8, kids long-term ADM. So you multiply that by 0.36 and the additional weight is 122. Is everybody seen how to read this? So it's the same across the board here for each of these sets of data. Okay. We seem to okay? Okay. Again, I've thrown a lot of data at you and not really going through it. But that's what I'm doing for each weight as I go down. If you jump down to number three, because there are three categories, I want to draw your attention to this one. District A does not meet the first criteria for sparsity, but it does meet the second criteria. So their long-term ADM is 1497. They get the weight of 0.12. So that's an additional 180 for them. Okay. So obviously met that one. They're not going to meet the next one. District B does not meet any of sparsity criteria. It's impopulous. Same for District C. They don't meet it. So they get no weight. Remember what happened to District 1 and that example from yesterday? They got no weight because they didn't meet the counter criteria. Here are two examples. And then District D, they do meet the second sparsity criteria of 36 or more, but less than 55. And they have 309 long-term ADM. So you multiply that and you get an additional weight of 37. I think Representative Shah had a question. Sorry. Thank you for saying that, Rep Shah. Thank you for seeing it, Brad. So this is great to see this. I appreciate it. And so this says to me once again, I just want to confirm what I think we talked about yesterday, which is that you don't take the grade range aids, add the new students, and then start applying them to the other things. And then you add the new students in District A of 1497. And you use that 1497 in the population density. So you don't change, you don't do other math before you get to that. They're done sort of in isolation and then you add all the pieces together. That's correct. That's exactly correct. They're done separately from one another, unlike current law, they're done separately from one another. And then so you get these individual weights and add them together. Right, perfect. Thank you. Oh, a real person. Rep Harris. Congratulations on your promotion. Are we safe? I think you might have said yesterday we had probably not the simplest education financing system. Maybe we had the most complicated. I'm not sure I'd agree with that, but people don't want that. It's different. How does this simplify? And are you available for town meetings this year? Explain this. I tend to go to school board meetings, but not town meetings. I've been to a few and I've gotten yelled at. I think I'm on some of David representative Gacavone's constituents once or twice. This is how it's working currently. This is basically all we're doing. Most people understand the concept of adding weights. Well, we had them for high school and maybe it's just because I'm not exposed to the inner workings of how we treat a, you know, say a K through A student. Well, let me let me back up a second then because I don't think I did this yesterday. But what the researchers did was they took they took lots of data from me from Vermont and they looked at region wide. And what they did is they created and I have not seen the model, but they created a rather detailed statistical model and they ran a lot of regression analysis on it. And what that's doing is it's saying that these are the important factors because they're measured within analysis within statistics that tell you these things. So really kind of, I mean, if you simplify what a regression coefficient is doing is really showing the slope of the line and these are the factors that that they pulled out. These these are the ones that really they could see made a difference in terms of what what they perceive how much should be how to how to get there. So that's that's the background of what they did. There are three different there are three different sparsity categories and there are two different small school categories based on two-year average enrollments because what they would they would go like this. Well, I guess I should say they would go like this and then they would change and flatten out a little bit and change a flat one and those inflection points are what are reflected here in terms of the categories they're doing. So what they're looking as they're looking at where they think the costs are breaking and changing. That's why that's what you have different ones for a couple of days. So they're looking at the information plus our information plus regional information and they they kind of came to the focus that this was the correct number to be using. Again, it's all based on their model which I have not seen. If I were to see it, I probably got to go home. That's lovely because my statistics are pretty far back and you know, but we do that. But one of the proposals in this case is that we're going to go back to the data side. So I've talked to people on our side on our data side who have far more statistical force power than I do. And they said they can do this but they're going to need to sit down with the research and see what went into the models, how the models are, because there are a lot of assumptions on these things. I'm not going to say that I'm right, but what they're seen as kind of, I mean, I'm going to say it, as the average cost of bringing a student up to a certain level. That's really what they would do. So I want to point you to number four also district with small schools, excuse me with small schools. We use the two year average enrollment here because what the thought was from the benefit should accrue only from those students in those schools, not everybody else in the school district. So you can have a school district that had five schools and only if one of them was a small school that's who the way to be applied to was that one small school with kids in those small schools. That's why it's the two year enrollment. So in the case of district A they receive a small schools grant for being under 100 because they have one school that was under 100. They had 77 kids there. That was a two year average enrollment. So that gave them an additional weight of 16. In this specific instance, I think they had four schools that were between 100 and 250 year average year enrollment. So that's that 646 and that's that total aggregated two year enrollment for those four schools. So it's possible for a district to have no schools get anything here or to have one school or multiple schools in both categories. And that's what I chose this district. And then again, if you go over district B and district C did not get it. They don't have small schools and they were sparse anyway and district D is sparse and they did have a small school that was under 100. And then the ELL is just the count. How many kids do you have? Most kids are in Chittenden County. Most ELL students are in Chittenden County. So that's where the weights are generally going. I checked last night, 83% of the FY 20 ELL students are in Chittenden County. 83% is quite a few. So that's where that population tends to be. There's some here in Washington. The rest is spread out. One Dribbles and Reds. So that's how the weights are done. If we jump to the next slide, slide four, page four, whichever it is, everything's the same up top. The only thing new is the added weights line at the bottom. All I've done here is I've added up a total of the weights for each of the districts and the state. So you can check my math just to make sure that I'm pretty sure Excel did it right. District A receives an additional 868 in terms of weighting. And you can just read across the board. Don't rocket science that one. So far pretty straightforward. Page five. Question. Yeah. Thank you. So am I reading this right that the District C has added weights that total more than the actual number of students that they have. So they're more than doubling their weights. You are. You're reading that correctly. Okay. And actually that's a slide further on. I'm going to compare the two as we get down. That was more dramatic than I expected. Okay. It is dramatic. But if you look, you see that if you go up to line two poverty, they have five hundred. So they get eight five hundred seventeen. An additional weight of five hundred seventeen on top. That takes up over a third of their total. And English language learners is the other big one. Okay. That's right. Yes. You can you can see how it adds in. Okay. Thanks. So. So page five. Everything's the same except the next line down, which is the weights plus the long-term ADM. So what I've now done is I've added in the weights to line one E that the long-term ADM, the blue line up there at the top. Okay. And so that's the long this line represents the long-term weighted ADM. You could stop here because people understand it up to this point. Okay. We'll come back to that statement in a moment. If we go to page six, this is everybody's favorite. It's that top new line equalization ratio. This is where we lose people. Okay. Remember, we started out with a certain number of students in the state. And we have to get better. Now we have too many because of the weights. And so this is the calculation to get to them. In this case, and this is coming from the model, the state had 87,494 long-term ADM. When you add all those weights that 54,393 additional weights, you get 141,887. When you divide that, you get about 0.62. That's the equalization ratio. And again, I said it yesterday, but just for context, the current equalization ratio is close to 93,94%. We're adding so many weights in this new model and not only new weighting factors and categories, but we're increasing the weights. They will really increase in the denominator. That's why I promise. And then last page, no, page seven is not last page. I apologize. We then do the equalized pupil calculation. And all I did here, all I did, what I did here is I took that equalization ratio roughly 0.62 and I multiplied it by each long-term weight for each district. So for district A I took that 2,365, which is a long-term weighted ADM, multiplied by 0.62. And I got an equalized equalized pupil count 1,458. And you can see if you look over to line 10 at the very, or column 10 at the very bottom for the state that we're back to almost the long-term ADM. We're at 87,493. We start at 87,494. That's all around in the background. But that's what's happened. That's what the equalization ratio is doing. And again, this is where we lose people. So you could well, let me go to the last page first and then I'll come to my part of the content. The page 8, all I'm doing now is I'm showing what the equalized pupil count is versus the long-term ADM. See that district A lost. Okay. They have fewer equalized pupils that didn't have long-term ADM. District B also went down. District C went up dramatically as representative I noticed. Okay. And district D also went up significantly. But the state as a whole is about the same. That's what's happening with them because of the equalization ratio. And it's that equalized pupil count that then goes to the tax rate. So going back to what I said earlier, you can stop before the equalization ratio. If you were to stop right at that point and not do the equalization and use long-term ADM, weighted ADM as your pupil count, what would happen is everything else being constant, education spending per pupil would decrease because you've got a bigger number for everybody. Everybody understands that. You added weights, my number's bigger. But if you go to equalization and say you added weights, but my number's smaller, that's where people's heads go like this. It is just math, but it's adding that's attractive. It's very complex sometimes. It's both fine and there too. That's right. And we even round it too. But no, it is, but a lot of people don't get the concept, but that's okay. Hang on. Reparison. Yeah, no, I get what you're saying, but it's going to come out the same. Exactly. But I just want to go back to the weight. Do we provide any weight today for English learning? Because that's, that's, we do. We do. 0.2. 0.2. And now we're going to what? 2.4 or not. Okay. So that's where the big difference is. Yes. Okay. Thank you. And the other big difference is poverty. It's like poverty. What do we do for poverty now? What is 0.25? And this is 1.04 times. And we also, in this model, we also increase the poverty count. We use a different count that we have. We do this last chart today with the, bring it back. You mean the total equalized pupils? Yeah. Yes, I do. That's what school districts receive from the, so that they don't affect tax rates. All right. Thank you. So if, if we were to use long-term weight at 8 a.m. instead of equalized pupils, everybody's numbers would be higher than where they started, which would make everybody happy. Spending per pupil would decrease, which means tax rates would decrease, which means not enough money comes into the education fund. And what would happen is the yield would have to decrease in order to push those tax rates back up to the right level. You'd be right back where you start from, but people would understand what happened in the background a little bit. So there's a simpler way to get to the same result. Well, under the current system, the best thing you can do for simplifying is get rid of the equalization ratio. Get rid of the equalization ratio. Yeah. That would be the same. And you'd get the same results because the yield would change. The yield would go down. So tax would go right back to where they were under the current system. Yeah. And, you know, that's what I'm talking about. I'm just thinking about why there's a choice that people would make. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Welcome. We're not going to ask you any questions. We don't want to get confused. Right. Exactly. We have this tenuous grasp. I don't know what to do because you're not going to be able to get us through the cost adjustment factor in 15 minutes. Do you want to start? It's completely up to the committee. I would be happy to come back at a later time and walk through if you want to keep going with Brad or I can start with cost factor adjustments, whatever would be the most. I'm sorry. Mr. James. Were you done? I was. I can easily be done. But as I said yesterday, I can go on forever. I didn't I didn't bring this up. I brought and I won't go through it, but I did bring the second one. It's called I think starts to be in your in your online. So let's do that. Let's finish up with you and the scripture. I'm sorry. Thanks for joining us. Fine. I'll come back at a later date. Yeah. She's done it to me too. It's okay. Okay. What's more of what we're doing? But yeah. And I think it is important to understand the cost factor adjustments because there is a policy question. Yes. That is being wrestled with in ways and means about which way to go waiting or cost factor adjustment. And so sorry, folks. We have to kind of have a grasp. But I think I think it's important to kind of take a semi deep dive on both ones. But I'll try to be a little bit quicker on this one. Yeah. I think it's important to kind of take a semi deep dive on both ones. I'll try to be a little bit quicker on this one. So. I don't have this labeled outside. I say in transition steps as proposed in S 287. And then into the first line says the waiting model is based on FY 2020 data. People seen that one. Basically what this is, this is just kind of a very quick overview of what's happening in 287. What, what's in the background? That first paragraph, I'm not, I'm not going to really go through unless you want me to, but I'll kind of do it quick over. It's, it's really the count. We use what we use when we use single year data. We use FY 20 data for our model. That's what we did. And the reason we did that is because we want to say here's what FY 20 was. If we did this, here's what it would have been. Okay. We kept everything else constant pretty much except for the equalized pupil count. However, that didn't make a difference because it changed the equalized pupil count. As I said, spending for pupil changes, tax rates change. You need to change the property yield. So the property yield also changed this. So the two things that really changed. There are assumptions behind the FY 20 data that we use that was slightly different. I'll go through those if you'd like me to, but or we're going to just jump over them just to assume. But what it boils down to is what we're saying is the base FY 20 for modeling is not what people saw for FY 20 in reality. It's similar, but it's not the same. I'm looking at puzzled eyes. So I'll tell you why. Okay. There remember act 46 had had merger incentives. Some of them, some of them were reducing tax rates for districts that voluntarily merged. The last districts that voluntarily merged started in FY 21. So they had eight cents off their tax rate. Other districts still had six cents, some had four cents, some had two cents still. The committee decided that they wanted to take that out of the equation. Another piece of that was also from act 46 was a town's property tax rate could not go up by more than five. It could not change. They wanted 5% either way from year to year as it goes to its new tax rate from its new unified district. So if we had it, if we had a unified district that have new rate, new district and a tax rate of $1.50, act 60, let it take eight cents off. So it's tax rate to its member towns to $1.42. If a town, so five, I'm going to round 5% of $1.42 is seven cents. So if you subtract seven cents from $1.42, you get $1.35. If a town's tax rate was below $1.35, let's call it $1.20. It could only increase by 5%. So another six cents to $1.26. If a tax rate was up here of say $1.60, but it's supposed to be getting to that when I say $1.30, 42, it can only decrease by 5% at the most. So that's eight cents. So it could be down to $1.52. That's what's happening. If they're within that range, they go to the tax rate. So those were in play. And so they were affecting everything in terms of the education fund, tax rates and such. So the decision was made to forgo all act 46 incentives. So what we did in the background was we re-ran FY20 data without act 46 incentives. And what that did is the tax rates that resulted, this is not the modeling itself, the weighting part. So that's what we did before we get to that. What that did is the tax rates changed enough that too much money was coming into the education fund. So the property yield had to go up to bring the tax rates down. So that the right amount of money was coming into the education fund. That's a subtle one. Yeah. So I think we're there. Okay. We're making for it. Okay. So that's what we did. And therefore not a single district has the tax rate that are in the model that I use that we created as the base as the tax rate that it started out with really in FY20, because we changed the yield. People have lost it in there because the incentives, but because the yield itself changed. Everybody's tax rates different. But they're all the same footing. Whereas before they weren't. That's where I'm lost. Okay. Because you've changed. So if you're a district that did not have an act 46 incentive. Okay. So let's say tax was $1.50. And the yield was $12,000. You get a certain time. That gave you tax rate. When the incentives were taken away from everywhere else, their tax rates are high. So more money was coming into the Ed fund. So that $12,000 yield would have been was projected. So that $12,000 yield would go up to lower the tax rate. So let's say it goes to 13,000 something like that. Your $1.50 tax rate is now going to change to something lower. So everybody's tax rate has changed. Everybody's tax rate is changed. Yes. Everybody's payment has not changed. Right. We didn't change. We didn't change education spending at all. And we kept equalized people's costs for this. This is this is before we get to the model after the waiting part. You know, everything is, we just, we adjusted the real FY 20 to take out at 46. And so nobody's tax rate is what they saw in FY 20. It seems like there's a little, there's a slight of hand going. I understand that. It does. Except, except, except it's not what really happened. What really happened happened already. Yeah. We, we use FY 20 numbers because they want to avoid the influence of the pandemic. Okay. And that's why they went back to FY 20. Instead of using FY 21 or we could have used FY 22 at that point. But, but because of the changes due to the pandemic, student counts changed and spending changed, you know, had all these costs and didn't expect some got covered by federal money. Some did not. Yeah. That's why they wanted to avoid that. So we went back to FY 20. So there were a lot of issues and not issues, but a lot of, a lot of reduced tax rates because of act 46. And they're all going to be gone if they're not already by FY 24. That's, this is the last year we're going into and they're gone because they've timed out basically is what, what's happening. So in fact, they're not relevant. If they're going to be gone, they're not relevant in whatever changes. That's right. That's right. So there is not a slight. Okay. So there could be argued there is in the sense that the state does not stay static. We know that populations and other things have changed. So going back to 2020, as if none of this has happened, I don't know, that's got a certain je ne sais quoi factor, right? I don't disagree. But, but it was, it was what the contest committee was. And I'm just looking for that point. That's what you said. Okay. This is very moment. No, no, it's good because, because I mean, it's not something that I talk about a lot. And it's not something that people understand necessarily easily. I mean, it's, I live in this weird world. I get it. So, but, but so, so what I'm saying to base FY 20 numbers for the model, it's not what really happened in FY 20. It's based on that, but that's not what it was. That's really what it boils down to. And that's what ABC and D are talking about. So what happened, what happened in the modeling is that some of the tax rate changes, quite a few of them were quite significant, both going up and going down. So the task force decided, and I guess I should say at this point, the Senate decided that they wanted to have a transition method coming in. They talked about a lot of things in the task force and they kind of settled on that. So that's where it gets a little more squirrelly when you see what I've done in the past, but not yet. So this section where I have one, two, three, four, five, these are the five years in S287 of averaging equalized pupils. So what they're doing is the first year this will happen is at FY 24. So what they're doing is you're saying take FY 24 and average it with the four prior years. Four prior years are current law. So we, you know, it's under the old system, the current system, but under the old system. Not monkey with? Not monkey with, not monkey with, because equalized pupil counts are not monkey with in any way. So really what I did here for FY, and I didn't, but what I would do is for FY 20, 21, 22 and 23, I would take the actual equalized pupil counts that I have. I would average those with whatever the new weights create for the FY 24. So that's going to be the first year of new calculation. And we would average that. Okay. So I, the new calculations are in blue and underline just so people could see how it changes. Then in year two, we, again, we do five years, the current year, the current year plus the fourth part. Now we have two number, two years of new calculation in year three, which would be FY 26. Again, prior four years, plus the new, plus the new year, but we have three years of the new calculation now. So what we're doing is we're phasing things out over time. That's, that's, that's how it's designed toward us to smooth the transitions. Then in year four, instead of using four prior years, we use three prior years. But in this case, it happens to be all new calculation. So we're actually where we should be in terms of the calculation itself, which is what we're doing. And then in year five, instead of three prior years, it's two prior years. And it's going to be the, the equalized people count to be used each year annually in S287 is a three year average of equalized pupils. So we're averaging an average. What we're averaging averages is what we do. Okay. That's, that's what's happening. One question, Brett Harrison. Oh, Brad, maybe I'm missing something, but what's the difference between averaging year, whether you're averaging three or averaging two, I mean, if everything is constant, I mean, those are the new numbers. Well, I think I think what, what, I was not in the Senate financial they were discussing this, this section, but my understanding is what they were thinking was there are some districts that are growing quickly. And so if you have too many years of averaging, you're going to be losing that, that growth that you should be benefiting from in terms of your tax rates and such. You're spending too well, but so, but your, your pupil count should be going. You do 20 years out. I thought on the chart to make any sense of it, you sort of have to freeze every year. The chart's different because I did, I'm going to come to that. You're quite right. Okay. Because I did, I did do something different there. Yeah. I'm just curious I'm just curious when town's putting together their tax bills what do they do? Put all this together by you know, landowner by landowner and then if you in short form and you calculate it or do they have something now what, what, what happened, what happens is the way the process works is I take education spending and all the equalized people's and I calculate what's called the equalized tax rate before the CLA is applied. I have the CLA's and I calculate it, but I sent all that information over SONS, the CLA adjustment over the tax department. They run it based on the data I'm getting and then we compare actual tax rates before they got, so we're checking each other. Okay. At that point we agree and they send tax rates out to the town. The town then sends out the tax rate and it's prescribed they show the equalized rate, the common level appraisal and how you get to the tax rate that you pay versus your education property value. And then you have the municipal part with the same house value that you got, but we're not worried about the municipal part. So, the towns are then raising money. In the meantime there's, there's submitting their I guess form 411 their grand list form to the property valuation interview all the towns send in and PVNR then sends me the grand list data by town. So I see for any given town I see the home said grand list it's just an aggregate number. So I don't care about individual taxpayers the tax department does, I don't. So I then have these two numbers. I know what their tax rates are. I know what the home said tax rate is I know what the non-homes tax rate is and so I know how much money each town should be raising. That's where that comes with. Then what I'm doing, I got to think about this then I'm looking at how much that's let's let's say it's one town one school that's called well I can't do you not pure anymore Springfield okay around the city okay around the city is a single school district and it's a single town city okay so it's only one one set of data so I see the grand list I see the homes that the tax rates I know how much money they can raise and I know how much money the school district needs so I then tell the town send your home said property tax to the school district do they still need more yes send your non-residential non-home said taxes that you've raised education taxes to the school district do they still need more most cases yes so then I send the difference from the education fund if you're a town like mine so its obligation is not met to its school district is not met by the homestead but because of the size of its non-homes grand list it only needs to send a portion of it to the school district and its obligation is the town's obligation is filled to the school district the remainder of that no non-homes that property then goes to the treasures over here they're over there then goes to the treasury and that in turn goes in with the property with the income tax or sales tax the purchasing use tax the lottery, the Medicaid those are the pieces of that fund and that's what I used to send back out to the school districts where they need more money it sounds like it'll take about a year it actually well because the grand list changed in fact we pay three times a year and bill twice a year it does but actually all in all if things didn't change it could be done once it could be done it could be done in mid-September if all the tax credits were right if the grand list were right people weren't appealing but the school district part what they need and the tax rate is all set that's not what changed it's the grand list that changes because people are appealing it's the homes that tax credits that change because a lot of people late file so they don't they put in some whole placeholder number then the real one comes in and it's different so we have all these things so it could happen once so is there a state in the U.S. that has a more complicated system I have talked to some national conferences most of them tend to be about data education finance but I've talked to some people about how they fund their schools and I look at them and I think some were based on years of teachers and such they're all different I think most of them have some type of foundation formula where they're saying you get this much money and then because of this kind of population you get extra money some form of that we're different in that sense I will say and there was a couple studies that agreed that we're the most equitable in terms of how we raise the money but we still let individual school districts decide on what they're going to spend we don't tell them what to do in other states that's not the case in other states they don't have people saying this is what I want to spend, the state tells them so I mean people think it's complex, I live in it I don't think it's complex but that's because I live in it but it's hard to say if we're more complex than anybody else they're all different thank you you got the personal opinion okay so the one thing I wanted to add and point out and this is I'll start is in S287 they have the ELL weight of 2.49 but what the senate decided was and this came from senate education what they decided was that one of those districts that have not many ELL kids and maybe still need a little help getting help pay for a part-time teacher instructor or something like that or for outreach or something so what they put into the bill is if you're a district that has one to five ELL students you get an additional $25,000 to help with that person if you're a district that has six to 25 ELL students you get an additional $50,000 so I think they call them mini grants how they call them but I think that's the term they tend to use what we're talking about so those are there those are going to be incorporated into what you're about to see those small grants are going to be incorporated you also get the weight for all of these kids but you get those mini grants too we have a question Mr. James morning thank you Madam Chair this is the part I had a question on so if you're getting the weight what is it 2.49 you're getting the weight for the ELL plus you're getting this what was the was there the belief that the weight wasn't sufficient I think in that sense when they have a small population yes I mean the distribution of ELL students is pretty skewed as I said over 80% are in Chittenden County and there are a few here in Washington County that have maybe 20 or 30 kids then most of the rest of them are 5, 9, 2, 1 there are a lot of 1's, a lot of 2's 3's they weren't thinking that that weight would not be enough they wanted to help that's what they wanted to do and a non-related question students with disabilities there's no special weight is that because there's the assumption they all fall into special ed yes okay so there's no extra recognition there's no extra weight for special education there is there a separate funding system to a large extent we're going to send thank you Brad well you set off a bunch of questions that's it thanks Brad am I correct in thinking that the extra 25,000 or the extra 50,000 is not per student it's one lump sum payment it is one lump sum payment it is not per student thank you thank you Madam Chair Brad thanks for coming in so I have a little more of a complex question I've been having a discussion with someone here in the city and they're saying that the schools have been underfunded and I am saying no they're not because the school board is able to set a budget based upon the needs of the students and if in fact they are not setting a budget based upon the needs of the students the school board itself is doing that and not the way that the formula as it currently stands works can you help shed a little light into the argument please we're on the Brad James personal opinion now but I would completely agree with you I do not think people have been underfunded I think that people have chosen to spend what they choose to spend we can see that it's scattered all over the place I do think that the tax rates could be different because of this calculation which is actually a different argument but I agree with you I do not think they've been underfunded because the school boards are deciding to spend on their students with their needs and requirements and any associated services that are required the board are deciding that then the voters can say yes or no to that but I agree with you they're not being underfunded thank you I'm going to enthrall you some more then this will be sort of quick I hope so we're now on I believe what's called C this okay and what this is without, don't even look at it yet what this is this is I would be looking to be at the last page you're not a school teacher are you I used to be I can turn I used to be so the first two pages are modeling that equalized people transition over five years that's what it is however what it's doing is it's using again like I said at the beginning we're looking at FY20 if this was in place in FY20 how did it compare to what happened so we're going to FY20 so what I'm really using is old data I'm using FY16 people counts up to FY20 that's what I'm really doing here FY20 counts because I know how hard that is I've tried to do that before and how accurate I am not so we're using real counts here for FY16, 17, 18, and 19 in year one and then we're using FY20 the new weights now I just said I didn't project out FY20 numbers to FY21 so for year two when we're using four year prior years we're using two old years three old years pardon me and then I use FY20 twice because I didn't project out for FY21 so for every year we step across so if you remember what I showed you here on that handout with the blue ones each of those blue ones are FY20 because I did not project so what we're doing is we're migrating towards the FY20 count artificially I might add but that's what we're doing here and again the reason is because what I'm trying to do is try to show if this is in place fully implemented for FY20 here's what would have happened okay and that also means I don't have to try to project out into FY21, FY22, and FY23, and FY24 because I know those numbers are good so this is really what we're looking at here so in column one on the first two pages is what our FY20 equalized people's really work column seven first two pages is the difference between where we end up under full implementation so column six, so all FY20 and the difference between that and the original FY20 column one, that's what column seven is so you can just see how equalized people's changes okay so in other words if you want to ignore the transition totally and said here's where we were in FY20, that's column one if S287 was as written was in place in FY20 here's where we'd be, that's column six it's an easier way to think about it but people wanted to see that transition which I did for other people okay so you can see who went up, who went down in terms of equalized people's and then if you go two pages three and four I did the corresponding tax rates you'll see at the top that the yield changed from your original FY20 from 10,018 and then I kept it constant at 11,107 it really wouldn't be in real life but we kept it constant just to make it simple and again all I did here was I took these new equalized people accounts for each account divided into education spending got the tax rate, got the spending people got the tax rate with the new yield and here we are again FY20 is what we're calling the base FY20 numbers with those that's where we started out if 287 was in place fully that would be column six now you can ignore the ones in between and then column four not column six my fault is column 13 okay so we're looking at column eight as the original column 13 as the final and then column 14 is the difference so there you can see what how the tax rates have changed and then in this fully implemented in FY20 versus what we were essentially were in FY20 and you can see some big changes here and that's why they're looking at transitions of some sort and there's lots of discussion going on about them and then lastly I know you're just waiting for this part lastly it's just this I think it's D on your sheets it's just I'm not going to go through it it's just kind of a description of what I did and the assumptions that you're looking at here in this handout we just talked about that that's really all I can say I have the caveats down there too I'll talk about that and that's what I have to say to you I am really glad that I am not going to be tested on this because I would need some help absolutely be retested and yeah so yeah I mean just to address that point it's not something I expect anybody to understand the first time around I mean I wouldn't either but I've been here since the beginning I've been doing the modeling you know it's ingrained in me at this point so but no reach out with questions that's perfectly fine I am happy to answer questions but no nobody's going to get this and pick it up right away like that so what you've done is described to us where S287 is at this point and then there is a conversation going on here about whether or not we agree with that or is there a different way to essentially implement the concept behind 287 get to the same place but is there a different way to accomplish that and that's what Julie will talk about the cost factor adjustment model initially it was called cost equities now I'm going to switch over to cost factor adjustment model so I'll say cost equity half the time yeah but yeah that's what that one's about and instead of using weights like we went through the equalized pupil count what we just went through what they're using is a dollar amount per pupil per category that table I gave you where it kind of walked through the four real examples and you would look at those pupil counts in each of those categories and you multiply it by this cost factor dollar amount so that would be money that would then go to the school district it would reduce their education spending okay so now you're spending for pupil and our denominator is changed we're not using equalized pupils anymore we're using long term ADM that line B here in the blue we're using long term ADM as the pupil count so what would happen is your spending for pupil would decrease significantly so the yield instead of being around 11,300 where it is roughly currently right now would drop to about 7,700 to bring the tax rates up to the right point where they come in it has to pay for the amount of money that we're taking off the top of the edge of these categories well not categories cost factor adjustment grants they're amounts, I should say they're name grants they're amounts the idea is that you're giving the people the money for that population that they need in both in both Senate bill 287 and what ways of means is talking about right now the money can be used for anything that they've used in those specific categories except for ELL student everything else could arguably be used to reduce your taxes except for ELL you have to spend if I get 50,000 I have to spend 50,000 on ELL it's not so much reducing taxes as it is saying okay here's your budget because you're starting to vote on a full budget that's not going to change but instead of looking at education spending I'm taking this part off for the offsetting revenues like I talked about it's going to be this much more but you still have this piece here of education spending am I losing people on that or not there's less play there's less play exactly there's less play and so the spending per pupil decreases too because you've got a much smaller numerator and the denominator will change you can see that so the ELL has to change to bring the tax rates back up to where they need to be but what it does it affects different districts differently than waiting does it doesn't affect them the same way and part of it has to do with who's operating at school who's not operating at school because you're not getting that money just like you're not getting that way except they don't quite work exactly the same way but they're similar to one is it just a proxy for waiting it's based on waiting yes to tell you where the numbers came from what the researchers did they calculated the weights they calculated what the long term weighted ATM is so they applied all the weights like we did in this and they said we had 141,000 students they took the FY 18 education spending I don't know what the number is but they took that number divided by that $141,000 and they got an average cost for an average student that's what they got it's around $9,200 and an average student in this case would be a K-5 student in a non-sparse district in a school with a two year enrollment bigger than $250 not ELL and not from an economically deprived background that would be your average student and then what they did is said okay $9,219 is each one again based on kind of what I said representative Harrison as to where these numbers came from they were saying if you have the space $9,200 in this case then how much is the cost to bring this category of student up to the to proficiency whatever the measure was that's what the wage is doing too just not quite as transparent in this case so you would take the $9,219 and multiply by each weight so for poverty the wage is $1.03 you would take that $9,219 that's what the number is both by $1.03 and that's the cost factor adjustment for poverty and then you say okay I've got 100 kids it's time to 100 the $9,219 was FY18 numbers the numbers that you'll see in drafts and that's what Julia will be talking about for FY23 so what Tammy called was just inflated by they got 2% annually up to FY23 so it basically becomes more what it was honestly maybe $10,170 something like that around $10,000 something like that Bondship questions Rep Feltas Jessup and the activist and Townsend my guess is just simple I think back to this chart you gave us I just wanted to clarify that these are not projections going forward of what might happen and projections would happen if we had done this in 2020 that's right column 6 or column 13 yes that's what would happen the rest is just kind of people wanted to see us said okay it's not going to show much but there it is okay yes you're exactly right these are not projections okay no that's best you caught my attention when you used an inflator of 2% and that strikes me as something that is potentially quiet currently does that argue that this approach could become for lack of a better word stale would be the same shelf life I like that term yeah it could but again some of the discussion how are you going to adjust that are you going to have an inflation factor built in or not or are we going to come back and revisit it every five years those are some of the discussions in 280 something you come back and revisit so often but again I don't know why they chose 2% they chose 2% and kept it constant yeah this is an estimate yes so if town A takes their cost factor if that method is used and uses it to reduce taxes and town B takes their revenue from the cost factor and uses it to provide more educational services aren't we adding to the haves and the have nots in terms of educational opportunity well I think regardless of which system or model we're talking about weighting versus cost factor adjustment I think in both cases we're probably talking about increasing the amount of education spending I think the districts that are finally have tax capacity or additional money because of the cost factors we'll bring some more money in and spend more on their kids which is a desire that's what we're after you're not you're confident of that I'm confident enough that I'm willing to put it out and say I think this is what will happen yes can I guarantee it no but I'm pretty sure that will happen that's the idea ideally it would all be going to the kids any increase would be going to the kids but again people control state people make their decisions sure and I think the towns the districts and towns that are high their taxes are going to be going up and I think my guess is that they probably won't come down all the way my guess is they'll probably stay somewhere in between it's hard to say we're talking about human nature here and I'm not very good at interpreting that all the time thank you I want to challenge you on that but I think we'll just have to wait and see because there really is a difference in how communities think about how much we're able to spend on education and really different decisions you do and I think that goes to a little representative Fagan was saying was you're choosing to spend what they think they should spend do the same do two different things and we can see that with the spending for pupil numbers and the range that we have currently people aren't choosing to spend the same amounts are they right or wrong I don't know but that's what I'm saying in terms of the Yakovonis question is that I feel fairly certain that not all of the money that could be used will be used but I think a lot I don't think all of it will come down either so I think overall education spending will go up, it's my guess I had missed that part of your comment and I'm sorry Rep Townsend you had your hand up a lot I looked out that's okay, thanks just a simplistic kind of question throughout your presentation you've mentioned a few times the researchers I don't recall are these researchers people that are in-house to Vermont state government or were they contracted out they were contracted out they're academics and this is their field education finance it's professor Tammy Colby Bruce Baker from Rutland I believe at Rutgers Drew Atchison and Jesse Levine from the American Institute of Research I believe I believe in the 22 budget we created this work group and provided funding or maybe it was in 20 well it was based on a study of a couple of years before that it came out of act 173 which was 2017 or 18 time has no meaning it has no meaning which reminds me I think I need to go to house out you are definitely safe so thank you very much I'm more than happy to answer questions I don't expect you to remember ones like I said I wish you had found my teacher but Mr. James I do want to ask you really quickly while you're walking out remind us about what the Medicaid money is thank you yes the Medicaid money I have an email somewhere that I sent to Maria the Medicaid money is comes from when supervisor unions are looking at their kids they're identifying as many as they can kids who are Medicaid eligible and then they reimburse for that they send in reimbursements to that federal government the money comes to us we send it to AOE into a special fund that was set up it's in statute into a special fund and then we give each SU 50% of what they they generated and their reimbursements if there's over a certain amount we give we take over 25 I forgot to put that number in it inflates and it's much higher than 25 then we take we take 25% of that quote unquote excess and it becomes an incentive grant to districts to SUs that have more than 80% eligible rate so that's additional money to them and then we can keep AOE and AHS on this can keep up to and I don't know what percent we keep but we keep up to 30% of the reimbursement for administrative costs that much but for all I know and then anything left over is what goes into the ad fund that you're seeing at the ad fund I think it's roughly 10 million I didn't know that either so I was glad you asked the question but it's in statute is where I found before I tried to find all our people who knew that were gone that's a problem you need to go I bet we'll have a you've now asked maybe a lot of different questions but go I'll be happy to answer any questions put that out you have that even thank you thank you very much it's fun it's fun I can tell you like it thank you so we're still live are we live? yes we are live so this is thank you guys once again we've run over when we have all of this time we fill it we are done for the day we're on the floor it's free we have nothing we have nothing in here until one o'clock when we're hearing about nursing homes so it is Dave who is the reason we are here no I feel like hanging me out in the dry Mary? yeah Robin you have a sense of when Ways and Means is going to vote out the pupil waiting bill no they're working on it right now and you may want to listen to it and I think if we can we'll try to get Julia back in because what Ways and Means is talking about she was not able to present to us the cost factor adjustment right that would be great if we could get her in tomorrow or something schedule for Tuesday at one o'clock yeah Tuesday you know my guess is they won't vote it out tomorrow I'd be shocked yeah okay so Mary yes do you have a sense of what time we'll wrap up tomorrow depending on how many questions you asked Dave well I meant are you scheduling anybody for two o'clock no literally it is just the nursing homes that want I'm sorry you're asking a fair question I can't imagine it'll be more than an hour understood yep thank you